which the facts took place. The state also argued that the pleading of the representatives of the alleged victims amounts to the raising of new facts that were not addressed by the Commission in its Report on the Merits. In this sense, they argued that the Court would only be competent to evaluate arguments related to local laws’ incompatibility with international human rights conventions as long as they had been dealt with by the local courts and when, in addition, the procedure provided for in articles 48 to 50 of the American Convention had concluded, something that had not happened in this case. Consequently, the state asked that the Court refrain from reviewing the compliance with human rights conventions of provincial law 6730, amended by provincial law 9040. 17. The Commission argued that the state's pleading does not amount to a preliminary objection. Specifically, it noted that the pleading is not aimed at preventing the Court from hearing the case, since its arguments refer to a presumed lack of competence to rule on the conventionality of domestic legal provisions. This aspect corresponds to the merits of the matter, specifically to the duty to adopt domestic legal effects. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in conducting its factual analysis of the case, the Commission argued that the legislation in force at the time of the facts violated the American Convention. It therefore explained that one of the recommendations for the case was to “order the legislative measures necessary to adapt the domestic legislation on cassation appeals to the standards established in this report on the right enshrined in Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention.” Consequently, it asked that the preliminary objection raised by the state be dismissed. 18. The representatives argued that the objection was formally inadmissible due to conceptual and contextual errors, since the request is not positioned to result in the termination, freezing, or diversion of the content of the case. They argued that Mendoza provincial law 6730 and its amendments cannot be excluded from analysis of the case because they are the provisions that succeed the legal provisions challenged in the Gorigoitía case. They added that admission of the preliminary objection would make it necessary to decide on the merits of the petition, since the consequences of that law and its amendments require that the case be resolved fully. They argued that Law 6730 is not a supervening fact in this case, having been in force almost since the case was submitted to the Commission. They maintained that the amendments to the law have not changed the grounds for the violations, since the new legal provisions continue to suffer from the defects of the previous ones. Lastly, they argued that the application of the principles pro homine, iura novit curia, and subsequent anti-conventional law require the rejection of the preliminary objection raised by the state. A.2 Considerations of the Court 19. The Court recalls that, pursuant to its case law, it will only consider as preliminary objections pleadings that are or could be such based exclusively on their content and purpose—that is, if sustained, they would prevent the continuation of the proceeding or a ruling on the merits.13 The Court has repeatedly found that preliminary objections raise issues related to a case’s admissibility or the Court’s jurisdiction to hear a specific case or aspect of it, based on the person in question, the subject matter, the time, or the place.14 Therefore, regardless of whether the state calls a pleading a “preliminary objection,” if analysis of such proposals requires prior consideration of the merits of a case, the pleading is no longer preliminary and cannot be analyzed as a preliminary Cf. Case of Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment dated May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 35, and Case of the Xucuru Indigenous People and its members v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 5, 2018. Series C No. 346, para. 20. 14 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections. Judgment dated February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, para. 32, and Case of the Xucuru Indigenous People and its members v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 5, 2018. Series C No. 346, para. 20. 13 6